英语翻译The United States had a claim for taxes against Finkelstein,a members of the defendant partnership .The partnership and the individual members thereof had been declared bankrupt .Finkelstein had no assets,and the United States claimed that a tax against him should be paid out of the partnership assets prior to the partnership debts.Held,the partnership assets should first be applied to the payment of partnership debts.United States V.Kanfman (U.S.

英语翻译
The United States had a claim for taxes against Finkelstein,a members of the defendant partnership .The partnership and the individual members thereof had been declared bankrupt .Finkelstein had no assets,and the United States claimed that a tax against him should be paid out of the partnership assets prior to the partnership debts.Held,the partnership assets should first be applied to the payment of partnership debts.United States V.Kanfman (U.S.Sup.Ct.1925) Oct.T.No.515.United States v.Kaufman (U.S.Sup.Ct.1925) Oct.T.No.515.
The Bankruptcy Act provides that the United States shall have priority in the estate of a bankrupt,over his other creditors,for all taxes legally due and owed by him to the United States.The Act also provides that the partnership property of bankrupt partners shall be first
applied to partnership debts,and the individual estate of each partner to his individual debts; any surplus in the property of each partner after the payment of his individual debts shall be applied to the partnership debts; and any surplus in partnership property after payment of partnership debts shall be applied to the debts of individual partners in proportion to their respective interests in the partnership.Under similar statutes,it was held in Lewis v.United States that the United States,having a claim against a partnership in excess of the partnership assets,was entitled in the distribution of the individual assets of one of the partners to a priority over individual creditors of that partner.Such a view is not inconsistent with the decision in the instant case.Since each partner is jointly obligated with the others for partnership debts,the United States in the Lewis case had a claim against the individual partner for the amount of its partnership claim.Then,under the Bankruptcy Act5 this claim against the individual was preferred to those of his other creditors,both individual and partnership.But as a creditor of an individual partner the United States has no claim against the other partners.The debtor's partners are under no duty to pay his individual debts.As against the other partners,the United States has merely a power to subject to payment of its claim such interest of its debtor in the partnership assets as is not exempt from the involuntary application to the payment of debts.But the only interest of a partner in the partnership assets which is not exempt from such application to individual debts is his claim to "profits" and "surplus".But this claim does not arise until there are "profits" and "surplus",i.e.,until partnership creditors are paid.
请不要将goole翻译上的粘下来，